JUDGMENT Mr. Arvind Kumar, J.:- The investigations in case FIR No.104 dated 5.2.1998, registered by informant Siri Pal (PW5) at Police Station Assandh, had culminated into the trial against Kushal Pal, Anil, Jagmal, Malkhan, Bachkan, Bobla, Satish, Satpal @ Satta, Bhima, Kuldeep and Smt. Savitri for committing the murder of Raj Kumar and also for causing injuries Baljit, Ombir and Siri Pal in the evening of 4.2.1998 at about 8:30 p.m. 2. It is apt to mention here that appellant Savitri though found innocent by the investigating agency, was summoned by means of Section 319 Cr.P.C. by the Court as an additional accused while Anil evaded his presence and ultimately declared proclaimed offender by the Court below. 3. According to the prosecution, the genesis of the occurrence was the incident happened about 5/6 days prior thereto when informant Siri Pal and others were in the process of construction of the shop, which was demolished by Jagmal and his sons Kushal Pal and Anil. On 4.2.1998 i.e. fateful day a Panchayat was convened in the morning and it was resolved that the land over which the construction was being carried out by Siri Pal belongs to them and they can carry out the construction process. However, on the evening of same day, when Siri Pal, Raj Kumar, Ombir and their uncle Baljit were sitting in their “Chakki” along with Kala son of Chotta then Jagmal, Kushal Pal, Anil, Satish armed with “Bhalas”, Babla, Satta, Bachkan, Bhima, Kuldeep, Malkhan armed with lathies came there and exhorted to teach a lesson for constructing the shop. Thereafter, Kushal Pal gave ballam blow on the chest of Raj Kumar; Anil gave ballam blow over the middle finger of left hand of Raj Kumar; Satish gave ballam blow on his (Siri Pal) right side of chest; Kuldeep gave lathi blow on his left hand and Jagmal gave ballam blow on right hand of Ombir and wife of Jagmal caused injuries on the left thigh of Ombir and Malkhan gave lathi blow on the left arm of Baljit. Raj Kumar succumbed to the injuries at the spot. On hearing the noise, number of villagers gathered at the spot, upon which all the assailants ran away therefrom with their respective weapons and injured were brought to the Civil Hospital for treatment. 4. Raj Kumar succumbed to the injuries at the spot. On hearing the noise, number of villagers gathered at the spot, upon which all the assailants ran away therefrom with their respective weapons and injured were brought to the Civil Hospital for treatment. 4. On these broad allegations disclosed by PW.Siri Pal in his statement Ex.PA, which was sent to the police station with endorsement Ex.PA/1, formal FIR Ex.PC/2 was registered by ASI Sher Singh and necessary investigations were carried out by Inspector Devinder Kumar, which includes preparing of inquest report (Ex.PN) and lifting of blood stained earth from the spot vide recovery memo (Ex.PB). He sent the dead body to Civil Hospital, Assandh for conducting the post-mortem examination, which was done by PW. Dr. Y.P. Singmar. This witness also medicolegally examined Baljit and Ombir injured while complainant Siri Pal was got medically examined and treated by PW Dr. Umesh Mehta, who lateron declared injury on the person of Siri Pal dangerous to life. Accused Satish, Bachkan, Malkhan, Bobla, Bhima @ Chinni were arrested on 7.2.1998 and pursuant to their disclosure statement bamboo lathis were recovered from Bachkan, Malkhan, Babla, Bhima @ Chinni and were taken into police possession vide separate recovery memos. Accused Jagmal, Kushal Pal, Anil, Satpal @ Banda, Kuldip were arrested on 10.2.1998 and suffered disclosure statements, which led to the recovery of Ballams each from Jagmal, Kushal Pal and Anil while lathis were recovered from Satpal @ Satta @ Banda and Kuldip, which were taken into police possession vide different recovery memos. Thereafter, on completion of investigations, final report was submitted in the Court for trial of the accused Kushal Pal, Anil, Jagmal, Malkhan, Bachkan, Boble, Satish, Satpal, Bhima and Kuldip. 5. After commitment, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Karnal charged the accused named above under Sections 148, 302, 307, 323 with the aid of Section 149 IPC while accused Kushal Pal, Anil and Jagmal were additionally charged under Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act for keeping in their possession Ballams without any permit. 6. The trial commenced with the examination of Const. Jagbir Singh as PW1, Const. Naresh Kumar as PW2 who both tendered their affidavits Ex.PA and Ex.PB respectively, PW3 Sher Singh ASI (under suspension), photographer PW4 Ravi Sharma and injured-complainant Shri Pal as PW5. 6. The trial commenced with the examination of Const. Jagbir Singh as PW1, Const. Naresh Kumar as PW2 who both tendered their affidavits Ex.PA and Ex.PB respectively, PW3 Sher Singh ASI (under suspension), photographer PW4 Ravi Sharma and injured-complainant Shri Pal as PW5. After this, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning and trial of Savitri wife of Jagmal as an additional accused was filed, which consequently was allowed and she was also summoned to face trial. Accordingly, on her appearance, she along with remaining accused were charge-sheeted under the aforesaid head and the trial started de novo. 7. The prosecution thereafter examined complainant Siri Pal as PW1, injured Ombir Singh as PW2, Prem Kumar Draftsman as PW3, Dr. Umesh Mehta as PW4, Dr. Y.P. Singmar as PW5, Dr. S.K. Midha as PW6, MHC Jagbir Singh as PW7, Ram Sarup Inspector as PW8, Const. Naresh Kumar as PW9, Const. Rajinder Singh as PW10, Inspector Devinder Kumar, the Investigating Officer as PW11 and Ravi Sharma Photographer as PW12. 8. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the case of the accused was of false implication. Accused Jagmal and Kushal Pal took the stand that Raj Kumar, Ombir, Baljit and Siripal came to his house and abused filthly and when they were prevented from doing so, they caused injuries to him and also his sons Kushal Pal and Anil, who came there. He further took the plea of causing injuries to the aforesaid persons in their self defence. 9. In defence, DW1. Dr. S.K. Khattar was produced, who stated that on 11.2.1998, on police request Ex.DB he medico-legally examined Jagmal, Anil and Kushal Pal and proved their MLRs as Ex.DC, Ex.DD and Ex.DE respectively. 10. The learned trial court, on appreciation of evidence, vide judgment dated 4.6.2001 held that it a free fight; the accused cannot be considered as members of unlawful assembly and are individual liable and the offence committed by them and that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused Malkhan, Bhima, Satta, Kuldeep and Babla beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted them. Appellant Kushal Pal was convicted under Section 302 IPC for life with a fine of Rs.10,000/- for causing the murder of Raj Kumar and in default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for two years was imposed; appellant Satish was held guilty under Section 307 IPC for having inflicted injury upon Siri Pal that was found dangerous to life and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of which further rigorous imprisonment for one year was provided; appellant Jagmal was convicted under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two and a half years with a fine of Rs.2500/- and in default whereof further rigorous imprisonment for six months was imposed. Kushal Pal and Jagmal were also convicted under Section 25 of Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each and were directed to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- and 1000/- respectively, in default of which the defaulter was required to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. Appellants Bachkan and Savitri were held guilty under Section 323 IPC for having simple hurt to Ombir and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and six months respectively and each of them was directed to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of which further rigorous imprisonment for six months and three months respectively was provided, vide order dated 7.6.2001. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently and it was directed that out of the fine Rs.5000/- be paid to the legal heirs of deceased, Rs.5000/- to injured Siri Pal while Rs.1000/- was ordered to be paid to injured Ombir. 11. Dis-satisfied with their conviction and sentence the appellants Kushal Pal, Jagmal, Savitri and Bachkan have preferred Crl. Appeal No.333-DB of 2001; appellant Satish has filed Crl. Appeal No. 740-SB of 2001 while the State with the filing of Crl. Appeal No. 624-DBA of 2001 has sought modification of the impugned judgment to the effect that all the appellants along with the acquitted accused were the members of unlawful assembly and liable vicariously for the offences. Hence, re-calling of the impugned order to the extent of acquittal of co-accused Malkhan, Bhima, Satta, Kuldeep and Babla, besides the conviction of the appellants and others under Section 302, 324, 323 with the aid of Section 149 IPC has been sought. 12. Hence, re-calling of the impugned order to the extent of acquittal of co-accused Malkhan, Bhima, Satta, Kuldeep and Babla, besides the conviction of the appellants and others under Section 302, 324, 323 with the aid of Section 149 IPC has been sought. 12. We propose to dispose of all the three cases by this common judgment. 13. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned State counsel and with the assistance rendered by them, have carefully gone through the records of the case. 14. The very first argument is with regard to the plea of selfdefence, so raised by the appellants Kushal Pal and Jagmal. The very basis of this argument is that the accused-appellant Kushal Pal, Jagmal and Anil (since PO) had also received injuries on their person, which had not been explained by the prosecution and that amount to suppression of genesis of the occurrence. The contention is meritless. Merely because some of the accused had injuries on their his person do not confer a right of private defence exercised to the extent of causing death, as in this case. Though such right cannot be weighed in golden scales, it has to be established that the accused were under such grave apprehension about their safety that retaliation to the extent done was absolutely necessary. The number of injuries is not always a safe criterion for determining who the aggressor was. It cannot also be stated as a universal rule that whenever the injuries are on the body from the side of accused person, a presumption must necessarily be raised that the accused had caused injuries in exercise of the right of self defence. Similarly, mere non-explanation of the injuries on the person of the accused, by the prosecution, may not affect the prosecution case, in all cases. The defence has to further establish that the injuries so caused on the accused probabilise the version of the right of private defence. It is well settled that to claim a right of private defence extending to voluntary causing of death, the accused must show that there were circumstances giving rise to reasonable grounds for apprehending that either death or grievous hurt would be caused. However, in the instant case, no evidence much less, cogent and credible has been adduced in this regard. It is well settled that to claim a right of private defence extending to voluntary causing of death, the accused must show that there were circumstances giving rise to reasonable grounds for apprehending that either death or grievous hurt would be caused. However, in the instant case, no evidence much less, cogent and credible has been adduced in this regard. No doubt accused Kushal Pal, Jagmal and Anil were having injuries on their persons and were medically examined on 11.2.1998 by DW.1 Dr. S.K. Khattar in Civil Hospital, Karnal, who proved their MLRs as Ex.DC, Ex.DD and Ex.DE respectively, in which Jagmal was having three injuries on legs and shoulder while Anil and Kushal Pal were having one each on right side of abdomen and back respectively. All the injuries were declared simple in nature. So much so, DW.1 Dr. S.K. Khattar admitted in his crossexamination that these injuries were superficial and possibility thereof being caused with friendly hand cannot be ruled out. The another factor is that if the accused-appellants were sure of their right of self-defence, they would not have waited for a week for their medical examination and rather would have approached immediately for their medical examination and also would have got registered their plea of self-defence, before the police. However, inaction on their part, in this regard and the other factors, discussed above, do not probabilise their version of right of self-defence. 15. The testimonies of Pws Siri Pal and Ombir have been questioned on account of relationship with the deceased. There is no dispute that both are the first cousin of deceased Raj Kumar. By now, it is a well established principle of law that testimony of a witness otherwise inspiring confidence cannot be discarded on the ground that he being a relation of the deceased is an interested witness. The term interested postulates that the person concerned must have some direct interest in seeing the accused person being convicted somehow or the other either because of animosity or some other reasons. A close relative who is a very natural witness cannot be termed as an interested witness. On the other hand, being a close relation to the deceased, they will try to prosecute the real culprit by stating the truth. A close relative who is a very natural witness cannot be termed as an interested witness. On the other hand, being a close relation to the deceased, they will try to prosecute the real culprit by stating the truth. There is no reason as to why a close relative will implicate and depose falsely against somebody and screen the real culprit to escape unpunished. The occurrence in this case is not in dispute. Both the eye witnesses/ injured Siri Pal and Ombir have stated that the accused armed with bhallas and lathis came at the spot and accused Kushal Pal gave ballam blow in the chest of Raj Kumar; Anil gave ballam blow on the left finger of Raj Kumar; Satish gave blow with bhalla in the chest of Siri Pal; Kuldip caused injury on left hand with lathi; Jagmal gave bhalla blow on left leg of Ombir, Bachkan gave lathi blow on right hand of Ombir; wife of Jagmal gave lathi blow on right hand of Ombir while Malkhan gave blow with lathi on left arm of Baljit. Both of them have given the sequence of occurrence and narrated the manner of the injuries having been caused by the accusedappellants with their respective weapons. Their statements are consistent, so far as the involvement of the appellants in the commission of offence is concerned. They were subjected to cross-examination, but they stood firm to their statement. Some minor contradictions, so referred in their statements, do not carry any significance as it cannot be expected from a witness to give photographic version of the events which had taken place about one and a half year prior to their deposition in the Court. The ocular version stands corroborated with the medical evidence led by the prosecution. Injured Siri Pal was having one injury on his chest, which was declared dangerous to life by the medical expert. Vide opinion Ex.PG, the Barchha recovered from Anil was shown to Dr. Umesh Mehta (PW4) and in his opinion the injury on the person of Siri Ram could be caused therefrom. The said injury was attributed to Satish. Injured Siri Pal was having one injury on his chest, which was declared dangerous to life by the medical expert. Vide opinion Ex.PG, the Barchha recovered from Anil was shown to Dr. Umesh Mehta (PW4) and in his opinion the injury on the person of Siri Ram could be caused therefrom. The said injury was attributed to Satish. No doubt no recovery was effected from Satish but a perusal of his disclosure statement, it is apparent that he, at the time of occurrence, snatched the barcha from Anil and after using the same he returned it to Anil and for this reason the Barcha was recovered from Anil and not from Satish. That apart, during autopsy on the dead body of Raj Kumar, two injuries on left hand besides one on chest near left nipple were noticed, which was found fatal since it pierced through lower part of heart and caused fracture of 4th and 5th ribs. Likewise, three injuries with blunt weapon were found on left leg, left thigh and right hand of Ombir. 16. No doubt Kala, the independent witness, who was present at the spot, has not been examined, but it cannot be overlooked that in our country there is general tendency amongst the witnesses to shun giving the evidence in the courts because of the cumbersome and dilatory procedure in our courts and harassment and searching cross-examination which they have to face in the courts. Therefore, no body wants to be a witness in a murder case or in any serious offence. However, in view of the testimonies of both the witnesses, which includes that of injured, non-examination of any independent witness does not affect the case of the prosecution. 17. The motive is very clear that the accused were annoyed with the construction of shop being carried out by the complainant and also demolished some part thereof. Even in the Panchayat it was resolved that the land over which the construction was going on, belongs to the complainant side and they can raise the construction. The plea that the motive was not strong is not sustainable as the variation in human nature, being so vast, murders are known to have been actuated by much lesser motive. How the mind of an assailant react is not possible to fathomed from a detached reflection. 18. The plea that the motive was not strong is not sustainable as the variation in human nature, being so vast, murders are known to have been actuated by much lesser motive. How the mind of an assailant react is not possible to fathomed from a detached reflection. 18. No doubt on the same set of evidence, the learned trial Court has acquitted accused Malkhan, Bhima, Satta, Kuldip and Bobla, but the same benefit cannot be extended to the appellants because their involvement in the commission of offence is writ at large. Merely because co-accused has been acquitted, it does not lead as a necessary corollary that those who have been convicted must also be acquitted. It is always open to a Court to differentiate accused who had been acquitted from those who were convicted. In the instant case in the testimonies of injured/eye witnesses Siri Pal and Ombir, the names of appellant Babla, Satta and Bhima were found conspicuously missing and no role was attributed to them. Likewise though appellant Kuldip was stated to have inflicted a lathi blow on left hand of Siri Pal, but no such injury on his person was noticed. Furthermore, Malkhan Singh, who allegedly inflicted injury to Baljit Singh was also rightly given the benefit due to non examination of said Baljit Singh. Hence, it is clear that the trial Court has separated chaff from the grain and rightly acquitted the aforesaid accused. 19. The trial Court found that the incident was in the nature of a free fight and that each of the accused was only liable for their individual act and not for the acts of other. We have gone through the evidence on record and are in total agreement with what has been observed by the learned trial Court. Though the prosecution witnesses claimed that all the accused armed with lathis and barchas came at the spot, but from the same it cannot be shared that all of them shared common intention to cause such injuries to the complainant party that would have resulted into the death of Raj Kumar. Only a single blow was given to deceased Raj Kumar that too by Kushal Pal alone and it is not the case of the prosecution that the deceased was attacked by all the accused persons. Only a single blow was given to deceased Raj Kumar that too by Kushal Pal alone and it is not the case of the prosecution that the deceased was attacked by all the accused persons. Hence there was no material to indicate that they shared the common obejct of committing such murder, therefore, were rightly convicted for their individual acts. 20. Thus, there is no doubt left that appellant Kushal Pal had committed the murder of Raj Kumar while an attempt was made by appellant Satish to commit the murder of Siri Pal. So far as appellants Jagmal as well as Bachkan and Savitri are concerned, they too have rightly been held guilty under Sections 324 and 323 IPC respectively. 21. There is ample evidence on record to prove the offence under the Arms Act against the appellant Kushal Pal and Jagmal and hence there is no room to interfere with the same as well. 22. Faced with the situation, it has been contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the matter pertains to the year 1998 and the appellants are facing the agony of criminal proceedings for the last about 12 years and hence, a lenient view is sought. 23. Appellant Kushal Pal has been held guilty for murder and has been awarded minimum sentence. Therefore, there is no room to interfere with his sentence. Appellant Satish has been awarded rigorous imprisonment for six years. He has remained in jail for about 3 years and 10 months months while the appellants Jagmal (convicted under Section 324 IPC) and Bachkan (convicted under Section 323 IPC) have undergone about 2 months and 22 days of sentence. So far as appellant Savitri (convicted under Section 323 IPC) is concerned, it is stated that she has undergone meager period. There is nothing on record which is suggestive of the fact that during all these years, they have acted in a manner prejudicial to the society. Their sentence can be reduced, keeping in view their antecedents but subject to their payment of compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased as well as to the injured. 24. For the discussion above, appeal to the extent of appellant Kushal Pal is dismissed. Their sentence can be reduced, keeping in view their antecedents but subject to their payment of compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased as well as to the injured. 24. For the discussion above, appeal to the extent of appellant Kushal Pal is dismissed. However, the same to the extent of appellant Jagmal, Savitri and Bachkan as well as qua appellant Satish is partly allowed and their sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by them, including sentence of Jagmal under the Arms Act. It is directed that appellant Jagmal, Savitri and Bachkan shall deposit an amount of Rs.1 lac to be shared proportionately while appellant Satish shall pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1 lac individually. Out of the recovered amount, an amount of Rs.1 lac shall be paid to the legal representatives of the deceased Raj Kumar; an amount of Rs.75,000/- and Rs.25,000/- respectively shall be paid to injured Siri Pal and Ombir. The amount of compensation be deposited within a period of three months, failing which the instant appeals shall deemed to have been dismissed and the actual sentence imposed by the learned trial Court shall revive. 25. The State appeal, for the reasons above, stands dismissed while the appeal of the appellants stand disposed of in the manner indicated above. ---------0.J.S.K.0-----------